Allowed

A.D.Manoharan v. K.K.Ulahannan

Kerala HC17 Jun 2010MACA/302/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court entertained an appeal challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 61,500. It held the Tribunal erred in fixing the claimant's income and accepted a higher multiplier for disability. We enhanced the award for disability, added compensation for loss of amenities, and increased loss of earnings payment, ordering the insurer to deposit the additional amount of Rs. 23,500.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to include Rs. 48,000 for disability, Rs. 10,000 for loss of amenities, and Rs. 7,500 for loss of earnings. Insurer directed to deposit additional Rs. 23,500 within two months.

A.D.Manoharan Vs K.K.Ulahannan — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

MACA.No. 302 of 2004()

¶6

-------------------------------------OPMV.1297/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM

¶7

APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

------------------------------------------------------------

¶9

A.D.MANOHARAN, S/O. DAMODARAN, ALACKAL HOUSE, PUNNATHURA WEST P.O. KOTTAYAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS:

¶12

-------------------------------------------------

¶13

1. K.K.ULAHANNAN, S/O. KURIAN, KIZHAKKEMUNDUPALATHIL HOUSE, AYARKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶14

2. RAGHU, S/O. VASU, THUNDATHIL HOUSE, MAMURY, MANJOOR.

¶15

3. THE KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICE, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM.

¶16

ADV. SRI.SEBASTIAN THOMAS FOR R1

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

PKK

¶19

A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.

¶20

M.A.C.A No. 302 OF 2004

¶21

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2010

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Barkath Ali, J.

¶24

In this appeal under Section 173 of motor vehicles Act, the claimant in OP(MV)No.1297/96 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated March 14, 2003 awarding a compensation of Rs. 61,500/- for the loss caused to the claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident.

¶25

The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these:

¶26

On October 18,1995 at about 7.45 P.M. the claimant was travelling in a bus bearing registration No. KL5A/250. When the bus reached at Ootakuzhy near Ettumannur, it capsized on the side of the road. The claimant sustained serious injuries. According to the claimant, the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, 2^nd respondent. The 1^st respondent as the owner, the 2^nd respondent as the driver and the 3^rd respondent as the insurer of the offending bus are jointly and severally liable to

¶27

M.A.C.A No. 302 OF 2004

¶28

¶29

pay compensation to the claimant. The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,84,000/-.

¶30

Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the bus filed a written statement admitting the accident but denying the liability. The 3^rd respondent, the insurer of the offending bus filed a written statement admitting the policy.

¶31

This O.P was tried jointly along with the OP No. 587/96 filed by another injured person and a common award was passed. PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts. A1 to A24 and Exts. X1 and X2 were marked on the side of the claimant. No evidence was adduced by the contesting 3^rd respondent. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 61,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate cost. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶32

Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the counsel

¶33

for the Insurance Company.

¶34

¶35

M.A.C.A No. 302 OF 2004

¶36

The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that

¶37

the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 2^nd respondent, the driver of the offending bus is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation ?

¶38

The claimant sustained injuries to his liver and spleen. Laparotomy and Spleenatomy were done. Ext. A20, Certificate of disability issued by PW3 shows that the deceased suffered a disability of 10%. Ext.A15 is the copy of the wound certificate and A16 is the discharge card issued from the hospital.

¶39

The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.61,500/.

¶40

The break up of the award amount is as under:

¶41

For the disability caused	: Rs. 36,000
Pain and suffering	: Rs. 15,000
Transportation expense	: Rs. 500
By-stander expense	: Rs. 1,000
Medical expenses	: Rs. 3,000
Loss of earnings for	: Rs. 6,000
three months @ Rs.2000/-per month Total	------------- : Rs. 61,500 =====

¶42

M.A.C.A No. 302 OF 2004

¶43

¶44

The counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of the compensation for the disability caused and for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life.

¶45

The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs. 2,000/- and percentage of disability as 10% as stated in Ext.A20 and awarded a compensation of Rs.36,000/- for the disability caused. The claimant was a Clerk of an Advocate earning Rs. 3500/per month according to him. Ext.A18 is the certificate to that effect. Taking into consideration the said fact we feel that his monthly income can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 2,500/-. The percentage of disability as stated in Ext.A20 is not seriously disputed. As the claimant was aged 36 at the time of accident, a proper multiplier that can be adopted in this case is 16. Thus calculated for the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.48,000/-(2500x12x16 x10%). Thus, on this count the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 12,000/-.

¶46

M.A.C.A No. 302 OF 2004

¶47

¶48

No compensation was awarded by the Tribunal for loss of amenities and enjoyment. Taking into consideration of the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, we feel that Rs. 10,000/would be reasonable for loss of amenities and love and affection.

¶49

There is another aspect in this case. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- per month for loss of earnings for three months. We have fixed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs. 2,500/-. Therefore, towards loss of earnings the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 7,500/-. Thus the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 1,500/- on this count. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable. Therefore, we are not disturbing the same.

¶50

Thus the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of

¶51

Rs.23,500/-. He is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate cost. The 3^rd respondent, being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall

¶52

M.A.C.A No. 302 OF 2004

¶53

¶54

deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the

¶55

date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The award of the Tribunal

¶56

is modified to the above extent.

¶57

The appeal is disposed of as found above.

¶58

A.K. BASHEER (JUDGE)

¶59

P.Q. BARKATH ALI (JUDGE)

¶60

PKK

A.D.Manoharan v. K.K.Ulahannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.D.Manoharan v. K.K.Ulahannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Fathima Amanulla Vs v.M.Sulaiman

Elsamma Vs K.J.Joseph

Kaliyamoorthy Vs K.Aboobacker Haji

Arun Vs R.Sivasankaran

P.K.Abdul Kharim Vs K.Nafeesa

Sibi Syriac Vs S.P.Mahalingam